Not quite sure where I'd peg x but I'd put it somewhere where it's rewarding enough to be an incentive to do all the triples, but not so much that it becomes incentive to do all the triples at all costs, if that makes any sense.

(Also it would help skaters earn world record-breaking scores the year it's introduced )

If you could change/modify just ONE thing about the CoP, what would it be?

Any changes to the way elements are scored I would make identically for both men's and ladies' singles. It would be silly to have different scoring systems for different sexes.

What I would change is the well-balanced program rules for the freeskate for both sexes so that skaters have more control, more choice, over where to gain their points. That would include allowing 6-8 jump passes for both men and women, and allowing skaters who choose fewer jump passes

This would probably require adding 15-30 seconds to the ladies' long program, with the expectation that some of that time would be spent on posing or slow edgework as a relative rest period.

My plan would be to give the ladies 13 elements too and to allow skaters some flexibility in how they distribute them. E.g., 6-8 jump passes, 3-5 spins, 1-2 step sequences, 1-2 other elements (spirals or other kinds of elements for points that I propose to add).

So, yeah, the fitter skaters could include more difficult elements than the ones who can't fill 13 element slots or have to fill the last few spots with less demanding elements because of fatigue. The ladies who can fit 7 triples and a double axel into 6 jump slots by using triple-triple (or 2A-triple) combinations could get more points by including an extra spin or sequence instead of filling the extra jump slots with lower-value doubles.

On the other hand, the skaters who can do 7 triples and a double axel in 8 jump passes but can't combine two of those difficult jumps into one pass to fit that content into 7 passes could spread out their difficult jumps to a typical 1990s-early 2000s jump layout and still fit in the current default number of spins and sequences.

My plan would be to give the ladies 13 elements too and to allow skaters some flexibility in how they distribute them. E.g., 6-8 jump passes, 3-5 spins, 1-2 step sequences, 1-2 other elements (spirals or other kinds of elements for points that I propose to add).

So, yeah, the fitter skaters could include more difficult elements than the ones who can't fill 13 element slots or have to fill the last few spots with less demanding elements because of fatigue. The ladies who can fit 7 triples and a double axel into 6 jump slots by using triple-triple (or 2A-triple) combinations could get more points by including an extra spin or sequence instead of filling the extra jump slots with lower-value doubles.

On the other hand, the skaters who can do 7 triples and a double axel in 8 jump passes but can't combine two of those difficult jumps into one pass to fit that content into 7 passes could spread out their difficult jumps to a typical 1990s-early 2000s jump layout and still fit in the current default number of spins and sequences.

I like your idea except I think the total number of elements allowed for ladies should remain at 12, not 13, in order to maintain the 4 minutes free skate rule that has been in place for a very long time. Some really good spinners can easily do more spins that have value close to low level Triples but gain a hell amount more for the GOE.

I think that's because Performance is so nebulous and subjective and manipulable (so what's the point of changing the rules anyway), whereas the technical part feels like it should be able to lend itself to some quantitative measurement. Three rotations in the air is pretty objective (mostly, forget underrotations for the moment). Good height on a jump - the difference between a big jump and a small jump is easy, but what about the difference between small and not so small? I suppose we could measure how far up off the ice the skater was and how far they went ...

I guess it is not so easy to apply math to a sport many people like to watch for its beauty.

I think that's because Performance is so nebulous and subjective and manipulable (so what's the point of changing the rules anyway), whereas the technical part feels like it should be able to lend itself to some quantitative measurement. Three rotations in the air is pretty objective (mostly, forget underrotations for the moment). Good height on a jump - the difference between a big jump and a small jump is easy, but what about the difference between small and not so small? I suppose we could measure how far up off the ice the skater was and how far they went ...

I guess it is not so easy to apply math to a sport many people like to watch for its beauty.

I absolutely agree with you. That is why I am in favor of replacing the SP with a series of element tricks without music. The LP could revert to the Free Skate as in the past, and show how those tricks can be used in a musical program with present Restrictions reviewed beforehand.

It would all look like the Ladies have individual personalities instead of all looking like point chasers with phony smiles. (The Men have less of a problem because they love to show-off, and so personalities are teeming with variety.)

I wouldn't call it math as you say. It's plain old arithmetic. There is nothing scientific about judging Figure Skating.

To the contrary applying math/points to jump layouts seems to be easy enough and is one of the most popular things to discuss.

Frank Carroll has said it is a real drag at times working out new LP's based on points first and the music second.

It's not math. It's everyday arithmetic including the GoEs and partial credits. Caroll is correct, by all means to win a competition a skater must concentrate on building points more than paying attention to the music. But then, suggesting changes of a skaters layout of jumps is the way to go. Very popular for firm believers in the CoP, and to 'el with the dwindling interest in the US.